My point was not that you responded but how you responded. It is hypocrisy, is it not, to throw down a list of insults and then complain about others using insults in the same post? You recently mentioned being more respectful to each other and I waited (not very long and it happened much earlier than I responded) to see whether you would just carry on as usual. I remembered you calling for unity during the EiE in-fighting whilst attacking the EiE people and felt sure it would be more of the same. I wasn't wrong.

I used to think there were very few actual reds on here and, although I'm bewildered as to the motives of those that accuse everyone they disagree with of being reds, I still think that. I believe there are people on the Griffin side who are sensible in their support and arguments for him (seeing his good points and bad and deciding that overall he is ok) and there are also those who are little more than shrill nuisances who scream at all who disagree. There is not necessarily a red among them. The same goes for the anti-NG people here. Some go too far and even I (anti-NG) cannot be bothered reading the threads where Nick is discussed anymore. Still, no reds that I can see. In fact, most people involved are known one way or another to other nationalists. There was someone outed elsewhere recently, though. A long-term Stormfronter who, as far as I can see, promotes race-mixing. As far as I'm concerned, that makes him a red. The only one I could say for sure.

As has been requested many times on here when these accusations are made; please name each red and give evidence that they are so (criticism of the BNP leadership not accepted as proof of being a red).

No, I don't expect you to "sit back and eat ****". Say what you have to say. Just leave the Bandalog rubbish (honestly, it's toe-curling, anyway) out. I know you've heard the story of the boy who cried wolf. If you really found out that someone on here was a red, nobody would believe you. Its like the reds calling us nazis; nobody listens anymore.

Obviously there are reds on here. Who do you think copies our posts over to the red ****e sites. The tooth fairy?

I like the Bandalog tag, it suits some on here rather well. Chattering apes, so I guess I will continue using it.

If you have a problem with my posts put me on ignore list or just get used to more of the same.

Obviously there are reds on here. Who do you think copies our posts over to the red ****e sites. The tooth fairy?

Nobody has to have an account here to copy text and paste it. However, assuming that it is a member, who could it be? It could be you for all I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green Arrow

I like the Bandalog tag, it suits some on here rather well. Chattering apes, so I guess I will continue using it.

I've no doubt that you do and no doubt that you will. It is cringeworthy, though. I feel embarrassed for you when you use it. You and I have never seen eye to eye but I'm letting you know that people are laughing at you with all this silly name-calling. You don't have to like me to take my advice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green Arrow

If you have a problem with my posts put me on ignore list or just get used to more of the same.

I've been here for about 6 years and I've read posts that make me angry, posts that make me cringe and posts that make me question the sincerity of the poster but I've never put anyone on ignore. I shan't make an exception for you.

As I asked in my last post; please name the reds on here and give evidence that they are reds.

Location: In Hampshire,engaging in F.S.P.P to undermine the Beast System.

Posts: 4,221

Re: Nicholas John Griffin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Another Day

The Londonelects website gave the number of rejected votes as 41,489 for the London Wide Vote (the only one in which the BNP had any chance of being successful). There is also a figure of 39,894 given for 'blank ballots' in the constituency and list elections (those who only voted in the mayoral election?). This was well down on the figure for 2004 and considerably lower than that for last year's Scottish elections conducted under a similar system.

The 400,000 rejected votes in the mayoral election, about which the BNP complained, were mostly for the second round of voting and were the ballots of those voters who chose not to name a second-choice candidate. This was a quite reasonable decision for them to make and, had I been a London voter, the likelihood is that I would have voted BNP in this contest and not bothered with a second choice.

After repeating the BNP's allegations in good faith, our poster Jack Black received the following email from Matt Bright, the Communications Manager of London Elects:

It is difficult to be certain whether there was deliberate misrepresentation or simply a misinterpretation of the available evidence, but the allegation that there was massive fraud in the London elections is definitely unproven.

Thanks for that Another Day, I feel much better after reading this post.

Nobody has to have an account here to copy text and paste it. However, assuming that it is a member, who could it be? It could be you for all I know.

I've no doubt that you do and no doubt that you will. It is cringeworthy, though. I feel embarrassed for you when you use it. You and I have never seen eye to eye but I'm letting you know that people are laughing at you with all this silly name-calling. You don't have to like me to take my advice.

I've been here for about 6 years and I've read posts that make me angry, posts that make me cringe and posts that make me question the sincerity of the poster but I've never put anyone on ignore. I shan't make an exception for you.

As I asked in my last post; please name the reds on here and give evidence that they are reds.

I have my suspicions but proving it is a different thing.

Then of course there are those who are not reds but do their work for them.

And why don't you and I see eye to eye? I wonder.

Would it be something to do with the fact that I support the BNP and its Leader Nick Griffin.

Would it have anything to do with the fact that I do not let the little cabal of well poisoners silence me.

Mere suspicion, is it? To paraphrase a comment from you later in this very post; would it be because they disagree with you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green Arrow

Then of course there are those who are not reds but do their work for them.

Again, names and evidence, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green Arrow

And why don't you and I see eye to eye? I wonder.

Would it be something to do with the fact that I support the BNP and its Leader Nick Griffin.

Would it have anything to do with the fact that I do not let the little cabal of well poisoners silence me.

No. It's because you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a red. It really is as simple as that. There are others here who fully support NG and i have no problem with that. At the recent RWB I was discussing NG with people I have known for nigh on twenty years. They support Griffin. I remain friends with them. Their support for Griffin is, I believe, misplaced but that is no reason for me to dislike them.

Your conjecture that this forum is swarming with reds whilst refusing to name them is, as you might say, poisoning the well. That is why we have never got on. I could add that the discrepancies between your recent posts and your historic posts and the fact that you got most upset on being questioned after volunteering information that you were some sort of SAS-type further my lack of faith that you are here for genuine reasons (or, indeed, that you are genuine).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green Arrow

You have a problem then put me on ignore.

I've already answered that but it does not surprise me that you mention it again. You seem to work on auto-pilot most of the time.

Last edited by hazardouswaster; 08-30-2008 at 08:17 AM.
Reason: Added a bit

For clarification the three outermost men in the photograph are "good ens" if I could have edited the photo. I would have.

All very interesting but I don't believe Griffin is state. As I have said before that if the state was found to be meddling in the democratic system. There would be hell to pay. Could you imagine the liberal/left media discovering that M15 were basicaly running the BNP.

Also I find the Gay allegations. Which stem from one source, Martin Webster hard to believe.

Your conjecture that this forum is swarming with reds whilst refusing to name them is, as you might say, poisoning the well. That is why we have never got on. I could add that the discrepancies between your recent posts and your historic posts and the fact that you got most upset on being questioned after volunteering information that you were some sort of SAS-type further my lack of faith that you are here for genuine reasons (or, indeed, that you are genuine).

I've already answered that but it does not surprise me that you mention it again. You seem to work on auto-pilot most of the time.

Everything I have ever posted on this forum or my blog about my past can be proven. Now if you would like a little bet say £1000 pounds I will provide all the evidence needed to a third party. My service record details of postings, photographs, etc. Now I do not have £1000 pounds but I do have truth on my side so I have no fears of ever having to pay up.

Strange how nobody questions the posts I copied over from the red ****e sites about a possible red mole and some observations I made.

Everything I have ever posted on this forum or my blog about my past can be proven. Now if you would like a little bet say £1000 pounds I will provide all the evidence needed to a third party. My service record details of postings, photographs, etc. Now I do not have £1000 pounds but I do have truth on my side so I have no fears of ever having to pay up.

How on earth would I know that photos you could produce are genuine and actually photos of you? And if you are not genuine now then how could I expect to get my winnings?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green Arrow

Strange how nobody questions the posts I copied over from the red ****e sites about a possible red mole and some observations I made.

You mean the posts where someone was bragging about being on SF? There are two possibilities:

1. They are speaking crap to wind up the gullible.

2. It is true and there are red infiltrators on this site. You could be one of them for all we know. A nice bit of double-bluff when you posted about it?

See how easy it is to accuse people of being a red? You don't actually need any proof. It doesn't have to be true but, as you now know, it winds people up and causes division.